Four and a half years after 20 activists were arrested in Tel Aviv for protesting Operation Cast Lead, a court acquits them of all charges. The question is why — despite video evidence showing they did nothing wrong — did the police continue to aggressively push to indict the protesters on bogus charges?

It was hard to remain apathetic as difficult-to-digest reports arrived from Gaza during the Israeli attack in the winter of 2008-2009, known as “Cast Lead.” According to data from B’Tselem, 1,391 Palestinians were killed in the fighting (759 of whom were not combatants, and 344 of whom were minors). A group of Israeli activists decided to stage a protest action at the entrance of Tel Aviv’s Sde Dov Airport, one of the Air Force bases from which planes attacked the Gaza Strip. The short protest, during which activists wore white suits stained with “blood” and laid on the ground for a number of minutes at the airport’s entrance, ended with the arrest and indictment of 16 activists. Last week, after three days in jail, thousands of shekels in bail and four and a half years of court hearings, all of the accused were acquitted. (Read the full court verdict in Hebrew.) Despite the fact that it was a legitimate protest and despite the fact that the protesters acceded to the police’s orders, for some reason unknown, the officers on the scene decided to arrest them while they were standing on the sidewalk and causing no disruption to traffic, as can be seen in the video below, shot by David Reeb:

Still, for some unknown reason the police prosecution decided to file an indictment against the protesters, in which they are accused of attempting to enter a military base by force, among other charges. Contrast that with the video shot by Reeb, where you can see the protesters following request of the guard at the entrance — not to enter.

Additionally, they were accused of preventing pilots from arriving for their flights, even though it’s clear from the video that the blockage lasted only a few minutes and that there were no cars waiting to enter the base. If that wasn’t enough, the police prosecutor requested to indict the protesters with “rioting” after the officers ordered the demonstration be dispersed. This, despite the video, in which it is clearly seen that no such rioting took place. At least by the protesters.

The police’s problematic conduct, however, continued in court. In her verdict, Judge Hadassah Naor leveled criticism at one of the prosecution’s witnesses, specifically. “The testimony of the prosecution’s witness, Mr. Uri Elishkov, contradicts what is seen in the video. There is no choice but to reject the testimony; in the best case it is a subjective account and imprecise explanation of the events, and in the worst case, an attempt to present an incorrect and falsified picture of the event.”

We asked the police spokesperson for comment on the decision to indict, on Elishkov’s testimony and about protecting protesters’ rights. The police spokesperson decided not to respond to the questions we sent them. “With no relation to the specific request, customarily we don’t respond to judicial decisions in the media,” the police wrote in their reply. “In general, all judicial decisions, especially acquittals, are honored and the necessary lessons are taken from them.” The police spokesperson’s decision to evade the difficult issues raised in the verdict about the police’s behavior, both in the field and in court, testifies to its refusal to recognize the police’s role in a democratic society.

*In the data on numbers of Palestinian deaths and their identities, there are differences between the numbers provided by the IDF and those from B’Tselem. Idan Landau’s Hebrew-language blog addresses the disparity here and here.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Mark Dankof, political commentator, about a new video footage showing foreign-backed militants in Syria killing seven captured government soldiers execution style.

What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Well once again we are seeing just another horrific crime that has been committed by these insurgents. The more we see at these various video clips it seems they are more adamant that the United States and its allies want to support these terrorists. Why is that the case?

Dankof: Well it's clearly the case because Israel gets whatever it wants. The fact of the matter is between the Zionist ...[entity] of Israel and the Zionist occupied American government.

War crimes are okay as long as they are being committed by people that control the Israeli government or people who are fulfilling the Israeli agenda.

The United States had no problem with Saddam Hussein using chemical gas during the Iran-Iraq war against Iran, the United States has said nothing about Israel use of white phosphorous munitions both in Gaza, Operation Cast Lead in 2009 or Israeli induced white phosphorous murders in southern Lebanon in that conflict.

But the fact of the matter is what is most revelatory here is that a global research article that came out today, Michel Chossudovsky site shows that Americans opposed this conflict overwhelmingly, an American involvement in this conflict by surfing like a 499 to 1 margin in regard to calls being made to their congressmen and senators and yet obviously most people have concluded that the vote is going to go the other way because of the Israeli lobbies that control the American Congress and Senate as well as the executive branch of the government.

One other thing is that there are several polls that have been conducted by Israeli newspapers that show that Israel wants an attack on Syria, but it does not overwhelmingly, its people do not want the Israeli defense forces doing it. They want the United States and European powers to do it on their behalf.

This is what's going on here. It's clearly illegal, it is dreadful, it is murderous and once again the criminality of the Zionist regime over many years is unfortunately now mirrored by the criminality of an American government that has been in league with these people since the late 1940’s. Press TV: Well, we are looking at these type of individuals and these horrific crimes that they have committed. How likely is the United States support for this type of element likely to backfire when you are training, when you are funding, when you are arming people that appeared to not have any type of moral conscience, then isn’t it likely that it will basically come back and hunt them?

Dankof: Well I think that that's true in terms of international opinion and blowback. What I'm waiting for is to see whether or not the people of the United States get off their high dance and turn off Thursday night football tonight, the opening of the NFL season and start caring about what these policies that their government is supporting are doing not only to our image in the world but in fact they are going to result in more of hundreds and millions and billions of dollars ultimately being spent by the United States government on these murderous activities as well as the deaths not only a thousands, potentially a millions of innocent people in the Middle East over time but the deaths of more American men and women for absolutely nothing other than the Israeli agenda.

And until the American public figures this out, it seems that the Zionist occupied government of United States and the media, the American media that is aiding these people would just continue but more of the same.

But Paul Craig Roberts is in effect correct. They will run out of men, they will run out of money at some point, they are already out of credibility and the fact of the matter is that there is a super whining in all of this, it is that the American empire is quite likely ultimately to collapse as the result of these policies and maybe to be replaced again by what my forefathers would have referred to as the old American Republic that was ruled by a constitution and a rule of law. (Video on the link)

Phosphorous shell explosion used against civilians during 2008 war on Gaza

Israeli writer wondered "why the world did not raise a finger when Israel used weapons prohibited by international law -white phosphorous and flechette rounds- against a civilian population in Gaza, and cluster munitions in Lebanon, while wanting to attack Syria fir using the same weapons!" Gideon Levy also wondered in his article published in Haaretz newspaper "What would happen If Israel were to use chemical weapons? Would the United States also say to attack it? And what would happen if the United States itself used such measures?"

In his attempt to highlight the international double-standard policy, he said "few words are needed to describe the weapons of mass destruction used by the United States, from the nuclear bombs in Japan to napalm in Vietnam,"

"…no one can seriously think that an American attack on the President Bashar Assad regime stems from moral considerations," he added.

The writer thought that "most Israelis who support an attack – 67 percent, according to a survey by the daily Israel Hayom – are out motivated by concern for the well-being of Syria’s citizens; the guiding principle is completely foreign: Strike the Arabs; it doesn’t matter why, it just matters how much – a lot," the writer clarified.

He believed that United States can never be a moral superpower "the country responsible for the most bloodshed since World War II – some say as many as 8 million dead at its hands – in Southeast Asia, South America, Afghanistan and Iraq – cannot be considered a “moral power,”

"Neither can the country in which a quarter of the world’s prisoners are incarcerated; where the percentage of prisoners is greater than in China and Russia; and where 1,342 people have been executed since 1976," he said.

"The attack on its way will be Iraq II. The United States - which was never punished for the lies of Iraq I and the hundreds of thousands who died in vain in that war - says a similar war should be launched. Once again without a smoking gun, with only partial evidence, and with red lines that President Barack Obama himself drew, and now he is obliged to keep his word…"

This Palestinian teenager is one of the victims of the Israeli military’s illegal white phosphorous missile attacks on unarmed civilians, including a UN relief compound set up to shelter and provide medical attention to Palestinian refugees. Israel’s military conducted its own investigation of the incidents, apologized for the attack and called it a “grave error.”

A UN fact finding mission overseen by South African lawyer and former justice Richard Goldstone called the use of white phosphorous a “war crime.”

Obama ignores Israel's chemical weapons abuse while targeting Syrian government that may not be responsible for recent chemical attacks.

Few major mainstream American news outlets exposed the sordid details of a 2009 United Nations (UN) fact finding report that revealed how Israel’s military illegally aimed chemical missiles at a United Nations Relief & Work Agency (UNRWA) for Palestinian refugees in a 22-day invasion of the Gaza strip that began in 2008 called “Operation Cast Lead.” As the U.S. and world media watch to learn if claims that President Barack Obama will execute a military strike against Syria, without a vote of Congress or the support of the UN, the same media outlets are burying information that suggests preparation for war could be premature. Little media attention is being paid to claims from a UN commission that Syrian rebels, not government soldiers under President Bashar al-Assad’s control, were responsible for recent chemical weapons attacks that killed over 300 Syrians.

“During our investigation for crimes against humanity and war crimes, we collect some witness testimony that has made to appear that some chemical weapons were used. In particular, nerve gas,” said Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria. ”What appears to our investigation is that this was used by the opposition, by the rebels. We have no indication at all that the Syria government have used chemical weapons.”

What’s also questionable is why Obama has drawn a “line in the sand” over highly questionable allegations that Syrian soldiers used chemical weapons when the Israeli military was proven, and officials have admitted, to using chemical warfare to attack a United Nations relief compound. The facility provided shelter and medical attention to Palestinian refugees in 2009.

The Israeli missile and ground assault on the Gaza strip began on December 27, 2008 and ended on January 18, 2009. The attack resulted in an estimated 1100 to 14oo Palestinian deaths. 13 Israeli soldiers were killed. Four died from friendly fire.

The invasion was stimulated by Israel’s claims that rockets were being fired at Israeli’s by Hamas militants. Three Israeli civilians and one soldier were killed by Hamas’ rockets in the days leading up to the assault that led to an estimated $1.3 billion in damage to Palestinian property and businesses. Israel’s military was also accused by the UN fact finding mission of violating war protocols by using Palestinians as human shields, murdering unarmed civilians, destroying water and sewer treatment plants, and wiping out food supplies and production facilities to starve the population.

The UN commission Goldstone led met extensively with Palestinian officials, victims and survivors after the Israeli military assault. The interviews and investigation led to the discovery of information and evidence that Israel’s military deployed missiles containing “white phosphorous” against civilians and the hospital.

White phosphorous is a highly-combustible chemical agent that burns on contact with air. In humans it burns upon contact with skin and creates very deep tissue wounds. It can also cause death when inhaled. It’s customary use has been as a “smoke screen” although it is illegal to use against civilians in times of war. The UN commission found Israel’s use of the burning agent against the hospital to be particularly deplorable.

When first questioned about the white phosphorous missile allegations that struck the UNRWA compound, the Israeli military’s first response was to issue a denial. On January 15, 2009, three days before the attack ended, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the chemical weapon attack a “grave error” and allegedly apologized to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. On the same day, Israeli President Shimon Peres apologized for the attack, but added the false claim that Israeli troops were being fired upon from inside the facility.

South African attorney and former justice Richard Goldstone was blacklisted by Israel after he headed a fact finding mission to investigate war crimes committed against both Israeli’s and Palestinians after Isreal’s military invaded Palestine in a campaign called Operation Cast Lead. Israeli media reported, falsely, that Goldstone promised to “revoke” the report’s findings against Israel. Goldstone, who is also Jewish, was one of South Africa’s liberal justices and credited with working inside the system to undermine apartheid.

In a July 2009 report of its own findings, the Israeli government now led by President Benjamin Netanyahu, claimed the white phosphorous was supposed to have only been used as a smokescreen to protect soldiers from Hamas anti-tank crews that were claimed to have been operating adjacent to the compound. Israeli officials falsely claimed that only missile “fragments” entered the compound. The UN fact finding group challenged the claims made by Israeli officials and accused them of understating the nature and extent of the chemical missile strikes. They identified 10 strikes inside the UNRWA compound, with seven white phosphorous container shells discharging completely or very substantially in the confines of a very limited space.“This is not a matter of a limited number of wedges falling inside the compound or shrapnel or parts of shells landing in the compound as the shells exploded elsewhere. It is important to emphasize that we are dealing with shells exploding or discharging inside the compound in areas where hazardous material was stored.”“Secondly, the claim that this result was neither intended nor anticipated has to be reviewed carefully. In the first place the Mission affirms the result to be reviewed is not fragments and wedges landing in the compound but ten shells landing and exploding inside the compound. It is difficult to accept that the consequences were not appreciated and foreseen by the Israeli armed forces.”“Those in the Israeli army who deploy white phosphorous, or indeed any artillery shells, expertly trained to factor in the relevant complexities of targeting, including wind force and the earth’s curvature. They have to know the area they are firing at, possible obstacles in hitting the target and the other environmental factors necessary to ensure an effective strike. It is also clear that, having determined that it was necessary to establish a safety distance, the presence of the UNRWA installations was a factor present in the minds of those carrying out the shelling.”“The question then becomes how specialists expertly trained in the complex issue of artillery deployment and aware of the presence of an extremely sensitive site can strike that site ten times while apparently trying to avoid it.” Israeli government and military officials took issue with the report, but mainly focused effort at discrediting claims that they “randomly” and “intentionally” targeted and slaughtered Palestinian civilians. UN interviews revealed that Israeli soldiers herded an unarmed family of 29 into a home and bombed it. Instead of sharing any of the details of the 575 page report with newspaper and magazine readers, and television viewers, the U.S. media concentrated all its attention on Israeli claims that denied the allegations.

Carla del Ponte is a UN fact finder who’s continued to raise doubt that the Syrian military used chemical weapons containing “sarin” gas against the nation’s war weary people. What her commission did find was evidence that Syrian rebels used the illegal gas. So why is the Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. defense Secretary Chuck Hagel pushing to attack the government for a crime a top UN official doesn’t believe they committed?

When Goldstone authored an opinion piece two years later, he said the report would have been different if Israel had cooperated and his fact finding mission had access to its officials and more information. U.S. reporters and columnists with the New York Times, Washington Post and Huffington Post used the statement to discredit the report in its 575 page entirety.

Goldstone’s opinion reflected that he’d only changed his mind about whether or not Israel “intentionally” targeted civilians in the 22 day military invasion of Palestine.

“The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.”

Goldstone also took the opportunity to balance a legitimate Israeli government complaint that his 2009 report concentrated the majority of its criticism on Israel and made little or no reference to Hamas’ attacks on innocent Israeli citizens.

Nothing, however, in Goldstone’s opinion two years later, denounced his fact finding mission’s findings as U.S. reporters seem to have intentionally tried to shield Israel from criticism.

As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel’s cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.

This video, lately posted on Facebook, is said by our source to be a leaked Israel Defense Forces video that shows the killing of a Palestinian civilian carrying a white flag during the assault on Gaza in December '08-January '09.

While it is not clear to us that the target of the killing is carrying a white flag, the video soundtrack includes Israelis observing the killing and laughing at the brutality of the attack-- something like the famous Collateral Murder video from Baghdad in 2007 leaked by Wikileaks.

Our source forwarded an email in Arabic from the person who uploaded it, stating:

his message translates into: the incident took place in an unspecified location of eastern Gaza in the Cast Lead war. it has recently been leaked.

Here is a translation from Ofer of the Hebrew soundtrack on the video at about :50, which he assumed was of soldiers:

First soldier: Now pay close attention to what happens in 3 seconds Second soldier: his head gets severed First soldier: And...beautiful! His head lands [on the ground]

The one-minute-long Facebook post contains two videos. The first is of two people in the doorway of a house; a woman waves a white flag. The second shows two figures walking in a field. One appears to carry a white flag that flutters when he or she is struck down. It is unclear whether the two videos in the Facebook post are from the same incident.

The Goldstone Report to the UN Human Rights Commission [PDF] on the Gaza conflict documented several instances of Israelis firing on and killing Palestinians holding up white flags. Note especially Chapter XI, Deliberate Attacks against the Civilian Population, beginning on page 158. In a couple of cases, that investigation documented women emerging from houses waving white flags and being shot at.

At approximately 20:30 on 14 January 2009, during 'Operation Cast Lead', Israeli forces carried out a drone strike at the house of Ezz Eddin Wahid Mousa Family, in Gaza City. At the time of the attack, the Mousa family members were sitting in the tin-roofed front yard of their house and had just finished having dinner. As a result of this attack 6 members of the Mousa family were killed and another member was seriously injured. Mahmoud Ezz Eddin Wahid Mousa (28) was severely injured in the attack, when several shrapnel from the missile pierced his body. Among other injuries, Mahmoud sustained several injuries in his right hand and right leg, impairing the nervous system in both the limbs. More than four years after the attack, Mahmoud has still not fully recovered from his injuries, despite having been treated in hospitals in the Gaza Strip and Egypt.

In January 2010, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) filed a civil compensation case before the Israeli court on Mahmoud's behalf but, on 27 February

2013 the case was arbitrarily dismissed on the grounds that certain Israeli legal provisions, in particular a 2012 amendment to the Israeli Civil Tort Law, absolve the State of Israel of any liability arising from the damages caused by Israeli forces during a 'combat action'.

"I cannot believe that my case has been dismissed", Mahmoud explained. "I got the news that my case was dismissed through my uncle, much later, because I was in Egypt at that time. I was receiving medical treatment in Egypt when my case was dismissed. My whole family, my parents, my brother and my sister were killed in the attack and I want to know why. Why did they kill my family? I did not file this case to get money. Money cannot bring back my family". When Mahmoud learnt about the Israeli legal provisions owing to which his case was dismissed, he said, "This is not a law. How can they make such a law? They targeted my family in the attack. We are all civilians, and do not have any connections with militants. This was not a military operation; this was a civilian operation to kill my family. Why can't they give me any reasons? It feels like my family died for nothing. I want the Israeli judge to tell me what he would do if he were in my place. He should look at the case fairly. If his family was killed in such an attack, he won't have dismissed the case." Tears welled up in Mahmud's eyes as he said, "I was sure that my case will succeed. It is a very clear case. All of us were targeted without any reason. We were just having dinner. What is wrong with that? They cannot kill us like this."

Mahmoud expressed his disappointment by saying, "The reason behind this law is that they keep committing crimes against us civilians. They know that they are wrong. My case was valid and it should not have been dismissed like this. This is not right, this is wrong. They know that we are ordinary people who don't have the money to meet their high court fees. Till when will the world keep silent about such crimes? Till when will they keep killing us like this? What do they want from us? We had to leave our homes because of them, and now when we are trying to build our lives again, they keep killing us."

To file the case for a review Mahmoud need a huge amount of money but his financial condition is very weak. Despite being disheartened, Mahmoud hasn't lost hope, "If someone else was in my place, he would lose all hope. He would give up. But I won't. I will keep fighting this case, no matter how long it takes. I am not expecting anything new from them, but I still have hope that someone will do justice. If I die before that then I will tell my next generations to fight the case. But I cannot give up my family's dignity."

The medical treatment Mahmoud has received so far is insufficient to improve his condition. He explains, "After the attack when I was taken to the hospital in Gaza, they told me that they will have to cut my right leg to decrease my pain. But I did not want that. My nerves in my right arm and leg were damaged in the attack. The Palestinian Authority in Ramallah arranged for me to go to Egypt for treatment. I underwent many operations and surgeries there, and my condition improved. Now, I am at a stage where I can save my leg. The problem is that even in Egypt they cannot sure me completely. The doctors said that I need to go to Europe for treatment, and there are better facilities there. The time is running out and if I don't get treated soon then they will have to cut my leg. But I don't have the money for that. I hope that somehow I will manage to get the treatment I need." Mahmoud needs to undergo a bone-marrow transplant operation to be able to save his leg, but given the lack of financial support this seems difficult.

After the devastating attack Mahmoud's life has altered completely, and he has been having difficulties in both his personal and professional life, "No one here will hire a person whose hand and leg don't work properly. I tried working with the Ministry of Transport in Gaza as a receptionist for four months, but I could go there only for 10 days every month because I was undergoing treatment. I left later because it was very difficult for me. In Gaza there are so many people who are unemployed. When they can hire a person whose legs and hands work properly, why will someone hire me?" Mahmoud further said, "I was married earlier, but my wife divorced me after the attack. She could not live with me like this. With God's grace I am engaged again. I want to start a family and lead a normal life. To do this I need to make money, but I am not able to do that because of my condition."

Following the 2008-2009 Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip ('Operation Cast Lead'), PCHR filed 1,046 civil complaints (or "damage applications"), on behalf of 1,046 victims, to the Compensation Officer in the Israeli Ministry of Defence. These damage applications sought compensation for victims following alleged violations of international law committed by Israeli forces. Because the Israeli authorities did not act upon these damage applications, between June 2010 and January 2011, PCHR filed 100 civil cases before Israeli courts, seeking compensation for 620 victims. However, the Israeli legislature (Knesset) and the courts, through legislative amendments and recent decisions, have imposed various legal and procedural obstacles on the achievement of justice for victims.

In dismissing Mahmoud's case, the court relied upon the 2012 Amendment No. 8 to the Israeli Civil Tort Law (Liability of the State), which exempts the State of Israel of any liability arising from damages caused to a resident of an enemy territory during a "combat action" or a "military operation". This amendment, which applies retroactively from 2000 onwards, and specifically in the context of the Gaza Strip from 12 September 2005 onwards, widened the scope of "combat action" by including any operations carried out by Israeli forces in response to terrorism, hostilities, or insurrections, if it is by nature a combat action, given the overall circumstances, including the goal of the action, the geographic location, and the inherent threat to members of the Israeli forces who are involved in carrying out the action. This amendment disregards the vital question of the legality of these attacks and ignores the damages caused to the victims as a result of such attacks, which can potentially constitute violations of the rules governing the conduct of armed forces during military operations, as prescribed under international humanitarian law. Amendment No. 8 directly contravenes norms of customary international law, which establish that a State is responsible for all acts committed by persons who are operating as part of its armed forces. Moreover, as a High Contracting Party to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Israel cannot be absolved of any liability it incurs in respect of grave breaches or serious violations, which are committed against the civilian population during military operations. Moreover, the Israeli courts charge an average court guarantee of approximately NIS 30,000 (USD 8,000) from every claimant, and if the case does not reach the trial stage the court withholds this guarantee as 'defense costs'.

Significantly, these decisions result in a situation whereby victims are financially penalised for having pursued their legitimate right to access to justice by filing civil cases before the courts. The judicial system is being used to provide an illusion of justice, while systematically denying Palestinian civilians their right to an effective remedy.

Palestinian human rights activists have launched a judicial battle against the Israeli state, to stop its evasion of compensating the families of Palestinian victims killed by its soldiers.

The Knesset has approved, on the 23rd of last July, Civil Damages (State Liability) Law amendment No. 8, which denies Palestinians the right to receive compensations for damage caused by Israeli security forces. It applies under all circumstances.

The Israeli Southern Central Court in Be’er Sheva dismissed, on Thursday the 7th of February 2013, three civil claims cases brought before it by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR). These cases concerned three separate incidents involving the killing of 14 Palestinian civilians and wounding of 24 others during the Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip, ‘Operation Cast Lead’, in 2008-2009

Amendment No. 8 exempts the State of Israel from any liability arising from damage caused to a resident of an enemy territory during a “combat action” or a “military operation”

Raji Sourani, Director of PCHR, said that such tactics employed by the Israeli judiciary deny Palestinian victims the right to access justice and the right to an effective remedy with respect to both civil and criminal cases.

He asserted that such measures very strongly indicate Israel’s unwillingness to fulfil its legal obligations towards the victims of its military operations through its domestic mechanisms.

Sourani told Quds Press Agency that recourse to international justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, is essential for achieving justice and accountability for Palestinian victims, thereby tackling Israeli impunity and ensuring respect for the rights of Palestinians in the future.

Israel classifies the entire occupied Palestinian territory as a ‘conflict zone’ and, since 2007, Israel has prevented Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip – whether victims, witnesses, or their lawyers – from travelling to appear before Israeli courts. As a result, the courts have dismissed many cases under the pretext of the complainants and witnesses not being present during the proceedings.

Amendment no. 8 directly contravenes norms of customary international law, which establish that a State (in this instance Israel) is responsible for all acts committed by persons who are operating as part of its armed forces.

Moreover, as a High Contracting Party to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Israel cannot be absolved from any liability it incurs in respect of grave breaches or serious violations, which are committed against the civilian population during military operations.

Fayez Salha, a Palestinian citizen whose wife, four children and sister-in-law were killed as Israeli forces bombed his home in 2009, has sued the occupation demanding financial compensation, but the Court decided to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, and fined the plaintiffs 20000 shekels.

Fayez said he is planning to go to the Palestinian Presidency to demand it to defend his case, demanding the PA President to take it "seriously".

He has also threatened to escalate the judicial procedures, expressing surprise at the international community's silence regarding such Israeli measures.

For his part; Issam Younis, Director of Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, stressed on the liability of the international community, especially the Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

On Thursday, 7 February 2013, The Israeli Southern Central Court in Be’er Sheva dismissed 3 civil claims cases brought before it by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR). These cases concerned three separate incidents involving the killing of 14 Palestinian civilians and wounding of 24 others during the Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip, ‘Operation Cast Lead’, in 2008-2009.

The first case was filed to claim compensation for the victims who suffered losses, during the Israeli forces’ targeting of paramedics of the Al Awda hospital on 4 January 2009.

The second case concerned the targeting of a 4th floor apartment with an Israeli artillery shell in the Shejaiyah area of Gaza City on 5 January 2009.

In the third case, Israeli forces attacked a family home with flechette bombs during a mourning service, also on 5 January 2009.

These cases were of a civil nature, and sought reparations for the victims of these attacks; PCHR also filed separate criminal complaints for all three incidents before the Military Advocate General (MAG). PCHR has not received any responses from the MAG in relation to two of these cases. In the third case, although the Israeli authorities commenced an examination back in 2009, its outcome has not yet been made available despite PCHR’s repeated requests to the concerned authorities. The dismissal of these civil claims is a serious setback for the victims, denying them their right to accountability and redress, particularly in light of the unjust reasoning behind the court’s decisions.

The court in its reasoning relied on the 2012 Amendment No. 8 to the Israeli Civil Torts Law (Liability of the State),[1] which sweepingly exempts the State of Israel from any liability arising from damages caused to a resident of an enemy territory during a “combat action” or a “military operation”. This amendment, which applies retroactively from 2000 onwards, and specifically in the context of Gaza from 12 September 2005 onwards, widened the scope of “combat action” by including any operations carried out by the Israeli forces in response to terrorism, hostilities, or insurrections, if it is by nature a combat action, given the overall circumstances, including the goal of the action, the geographic location, and the inherent threat to members of the Israeli forces who are involved in carrying out the action.

This amendment disregards the vital question of the legality of these attacks and ignores the damages caused to the victims as a result of such attacks, which can potentially constitute violations of the rules governing the conduct of armed forces during military operations, as prescribed under international humanitarian law. The Amendment no. 8 directly contravenes norms of customary international law, which establish that a State (in this instance Israel) is responsible for all acts committed by persons who are operating as part of its armed forces. Moreover, as a High Contracting Party to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Israel cannot be absolved from any liability it incurs in respect of grave breaches or serious violations, which are committed against the civilian population during military operations.

Most importantly, it must be noted that these decisions form part of a series of measures enacted by the Israeli authorities in recent years, which result in the dismissal of a large amount of cases and are intended to prevent Palestinians from claiming compensation in the event of violations of international law by Israel. Israel classifies the entire occupied Palestinian territory as a ‘conflict zone’ and, since 2007, Israel has prevented Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip – whether victims, witnesses, or their lawyers – from travelling to appear before Israeli courts. As a result, the courts have dismissed many cases under the pretext of the complainants and witnesses not being present during the proceedings.

Such tactics employed by the Israeli judiciary deny Palestinian victims the right to access to justice and the right to an effective remedy with respect to both civil and criminal cases. Such measures very strongly indicate Israel’s unwillingness to fulfil its legal obligations towards the victims of its military operations through its domestic mechanisms. Recourse to international justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, is essential for achieving justice and accountability for Palestinian victims, thereby tackling Israeli impunity and ensuring respect for the rights of Palestinians in the future.

[1] On 16 July 2012, the Israeli Knesset accepted the Law and Explanatory Matters Bill, which was published in the Government Act Bill – 387 in May 2008, page 598.

An Israeli court rejected a Palestinian lawsuit filed against the Israeli army regarding its killing of civilians and children from one family in an aerial attack on their house during the 2009 war on the Gaza Strip, and also fined the plaintiffs.

The Israeli central court in Beersheba two weeks ago refused the complaint that was filed by Al-Mizan center for human rights against the Israeli army about its bombing of a civilian house belonging to Fayez Saleha on January 9, 2009.

The court also decided to fine the plaintiffs 20,000 shekels as expenses for its adjudication.

The court acquitted the Israeli army and claimed that despite the proved failure of the army to give the residents the chance to leave their house, the Israeli aerial attack happened during wartime. According to a probe into the attack conducted by Al-Mizan center, an Israeli drone had fired one missile at the house, which is located in Beit Lahia north of Gaza, before another Israeli warplane hastened to drop a heavy bomb on it.

The bombing led to the killing of Saleha's wife, all her four children and her young sister.

The victims are Randa Fayez, the mother and her kids, Diauddin, aged 14, Bahauddin, four years, Rana, 12, and Rula, one year as well as her sister Fatima, 22. Al-Mizan center had filed a request in November 2009 with the Israeli military prosecutor demanding him to open an investigation into the incident, but he closed the probe quickly and did not make any indictments.

European human rights organization warned of a new crime committed by the occupation against the Samouni family in Gaza, after 21 of its members had been executed during an Israeli military incursion on the Gaza Strip 4 years ago.

The Euro-Mediterranean Observatory for Human Rights said in a statement on Tuesday that the girl who has survived the Israeli massacre, committed against the Samouni family in 2009, suffers today from serious health complications after being hurt in the head by seven pieces of shrapnel from the occupation's rockets.

The human rights Observatory explained that the medical reports of the girl Amal Samouni, 15, show that her situation requires a serious surgical operation that cannot be accomplished in the Palestinian hospitals.

The child's mother told the Euro-Mediterranean Observatory that the Israeli authorities has been preventing them from traveling to the occupied territories and receive treatment in the Israeli hospitals, for "security reasons".

The Geneva based organization has denounced the acquittal by the Israeli military prosecution for the officers responsible for the air strike that had killed 21 members of the Samouni family in January 2009.

It also warned that if Israel continues to prevent Amal from receiving the necessary treatment, the file of the massacre committed against her family will be re-opened at international forums.